alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
      32.1


Section
      1350 Certification





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of SUNRISE REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. (the
      "Company") on Form 10−Q for the three and six months ended June
      30,
      2008 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes−Oxley Act of 2002 that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request and for the periods
      indicated.




Date:
                  August 19, 2008
              By:
                  /s/ Lin, Chi-JungLin,
                  Chi-Jung, Chief Executive OfficerDate:
                  August 19, 2008
              By:
                  /s/ Wang, Wen-YanWang,
                  Wen-Yan, Chief Financial
                  Officer
#### § 12.32 When may the Service or the Solicitor obtain administrative forfeiture of my property?

If your fish, wildlife, plant or other property is subject to forfeiture under any Act listed in § 12.2, and it is also property subject to administrative forfeiture, the Service or the Solicitor may initiate an administrative forfeiture proceeding of the property under the forfeiture procedures described in this subpart.
Editorial Note on Part 660
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 660 appear at 67 FR 65906, Oct. 29, 2002, 88 FR 81358, Nov. 22, 2023.

§ 660.517 Framework for revising regulations. ( a ) *General.* NMFS will establish and adjust specifications and management measures in accordance with procedures and standards in Amendment 8 to the FMP.
( b ) *Annual actions.* Annual specifications are developed and implemented according to § 660.508.
( c ) *Routine management measures.* Consistent with section. 2.1 of Amendment 8 to the FMP, management measures designated as routine may be adjusted during the year after recommendation from the Council, approval by NMFS, and publication in the Federal Register.
( d ) *Changes to the regulations.* Regulations under this subpart may be promulgated, removed, or revised. Any such action will be made according to the framework measures in section 2 of Amendment 8 to the FMP and will be published in the Federal Register.
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 8 August 2005         

amending Decision 96/550/EC authorising methods for grading pig carcases in Finland

(notified under document number C(2005) 2995)

(Only the Finnish and Swedish texts are authentic)

(2005/611/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 of 13 November 1984 determining the Community scale for grading pig carcases (1), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 96/550/EC is hereby amended as follows:

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Finland.

Done at Brussels, 8 August 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 301, 20.11.1984, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3513/93 (OJ L 320, 22.12.1993, p. 5).

(2)OJ L 236, 18.9.1996, p. 47.

(3)OJ L 285, 25.10.1985, p. 39. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 3127/94 (OJ L 330, 21.12.1994, p. 43).

----
#### MARY F. WILCOX as Guardian of MINNIE F. PERKINS, an Infant, Appellant, *v.*JAMES A. VAN SCHAICK, Respondent.

*Guardian*— *accounting by*— *he cannot compel the property of Ms ward to conbi'ibute to pay’tax, assessed against him individually.*

Appeal from a decision of the surrogate of Saratoga county, in the matter of the accounting of Janies A. Van Schaick, as guardian of Minnie F. Perkins, formerly Wilcox.

Van Schaick was the guardian of Minnie F. Perkins; and he and one Watson were administrators, with the will annexed, of one Wilcox ; under which will the ward was entitled to one-eighth of the residuum, tie acted as guardian for ten years ; and during that time he kept no separate account; deposited the moneys received by him, as guardian, in his own name; invested moneys in his own name, and took no securities in the name of the infant; and never credited the infant the interest on any specific bond and mortgage.

After considering certain other questions, the court, at General Term, said : “ The defendant was also allowed a certain share of taxes assessed against him, individually, for personal estate for several years. And this allowance was made on the ratio that his own personal property bore to the personal property of his ward. The defendant appears to have been assessed, individually, as executor and as guardian. He explains the assessment as executor and as guardian to refer to other estates than that of this infant. And he claims that part of the personal estate for which he was individually assessed was really her property. But the surrogate finds that the defendant owned, individually, during these several years, the sum of $10,000 personal property. And the amount of his assessment on personal property was never over $6,000, and sometimes only $4,000. It does not, therefore, appear that he ever paid an assessment upon a greater amount of personal property than he owned. On what principle, then, should this, infant be charged ? He was not assessed as her guardian (1 R. S. [m. p.], 391, § 10). It would be wrong to permit him now, *280when be has not been assessed on all bis own property, to throw part of bis taxes upon her, on the ground that he has successfully concealed from the assessors that he held some personal property as her guardian. In other words, he claims that she should pay his taxes, because her property was not taxed. This will not answer.”

*Putnam <& JEuslis,*for the appellant.

*Edgar L. Eursman,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Learned, P. J.

Present — Learned, P. J. ; Bocees and BoaedmaN, JJ.

Decree modified so as to charge defendant with the $3,210, and interest, and so as to disallow the assessments made, and to be made, in respect to the bank stock as a credit, and also so as to disallow that portion of the taxes on the personal estate allowed by the decree, with costs of appeal against defendant, personally.
#### § 600.710 Permits.

Regulations pertaining to permits required for certain fisheries are set forth in the parts of this chapter governing those fisheries.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-816]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 16 and 39

[FAR Case 2003-008]
RIN 9000-AJ74; Docket 2006-0015


Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2003-008, Share-In-
Savings Contracting

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration 
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense 
Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) have agreed to withdraw the 
proposed rule, FAR case 2003-008, Share-in-Savings Contracting, which 
was published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2004. The rule 
proposed amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) as it 
pertains to types of contracts and acquisition of information 
technology to address the inclusion of Share-in-Savings (SIS) 
contracting. However, the SIS concept was not reauthorized by Congress.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, contact 
Mr. Kenneth Buck at (202) 219-0311. Please cite FAR case 2003-008. For 
information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the 
FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 
501-4755.

    Dated: January 24, 2006.
Gerald Zaffos,
Director, Contract Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 06-816 Filed 1-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**824 TP 14-00134**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF CONSTANTINE JACKSON, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT.

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H. Dadd, A.J.], entered December 26, 2013) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Entered: July 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
User Services

Director 

Resource Management

Director /Comptroller

Information Analysis Centers

Director

Information Technology Services

Director 

Enterprise Content Management

Director 

Project Management

Director 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering

HON Heidi Shyu

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (R&E)/Deputy CTO

Dr. David A. Honey

Administrator, Defense Technical Information Center

Mr. Christopher E. Thomas

Deputy Administrator/CIO

Ms. Yvette R. Jacks

Performing the Duties of the ASD(S&T)

Dr. Steven G. Wax

Chief of Sta



8725 John J. Kingman Road

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6218

1.800.225.3842

https://Discover.DTIC.mil

Dec 2023

Records Management

Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO)

Principal Deputy for S&T (PD, ASD(S&T))

Dr. Steven G. Wax

Executive Ocer
#### § 35.12 Water rights.

Nothing in the regulations in this part constitutes an expressed or implied claim or denial on the part of the Department of the Interior as to exemption from State water laws.
Pre-Award Frequently Asked Questions 

(FAQ) for 2024 COPS Office Community 

Policing Development Implementation of 

De-Escalation Training Act Program

Q. Are law enforcement agencies eligible to apply for the FY24 Implementation of De-Escalation 

Training Act program? 

A. The solicitation is open only to for-profit (commercial) organizations, nonprofit organizations, 

institutions of higher education, community groups, and faith-based organizations. 

Q. Under the FY24 Implementation of De-Escalation Training Act program, what would be a project 

considered out of scope?

A. Proposals that do not address the following requirements will not be considered:

• Development of standards for DOJ training approvals

• Development of processes for training approvals and continual assessments

• Development of tools for applicants applying for training approval

• Piloting an application for approval process in the field

• Creation of an updatable public catalog of approved training programs

• Development of a tracking and reporting system on training deliveries

• Facilitation of ongoing stakeholder engagement around project activities

For the FY24 COPS Office Solicitations Frequently Asked Questions visit our How To Apply page. 

Questions? For technical assistance with submitting the full application in JustGrants, contact the 

JustGrants Service Desk at JustGrants.Support@usdoj.gov or 833-872-5175. The JustGrants Service Desk 

operates 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. eastern time (ET) Monday to Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET on 

Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays.

For programmatic and general assistance with the solicitation requirements, contact the COPS Office 

Response Center at 800-421-6770 or by email at AskCOPSRC@usdoj.gov. The Response Center’s hours 

of operation are Monday–Friday (except U.S. Federal Government holidays; see 

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/federal-holidays/) from 9:00 

a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). The Response Center will remain open on the solicitation closing 

date until 4:59 p.m. ET.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2678

_____________________________

KRISTEN ELIZABETH WAGNER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

Michael A. Flowers, Judge.

January 16, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Kristen Elizabeth Wagner, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
I am a resident of Battlement Mesa CO which is being inundated with natural gas drilling even within the PUD of 

Battlement Mesa. we are subject not only to the toxic fumes generated during drilling operations but also the 

pollution from truck traffic which occurs on a 24/7 basis and has resulted in smog that is worse than in cities like 

Denver CO. 

 

These vehicles and the motors on the rigs have no pollution controls that are mandated in the cities like Denver. 

It has become so bad that even the siding on houses is being permantely stained and discolored by the exhaust 

from these motors. 

The whole area should be subject to the same EPA regulations as are applied to the cities as the traffic and 

motors on the rigs are just as prevalent as in the cities. 

 

Garry Evenson 

 

docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505

G. Evenson 

to: 

Nick Parsons 

07/31/2010 04:21 PM 

Show Details 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web1283.h... 8/9/2010
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

December 6, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00675

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.M.R. AND A.P.R.N., CHILDREN

,

From th e 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA02765 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

In this accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating Appellant’s parental rights, Appellant’s court

- appointed attorney filed an Anders brief. In the brief, counsel states that after a professional evaluation of the record, counsel finds no reversible error, concludes the appeal is without merit and frivolous, and counsel attached a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re R.R. , No. 04

- 03

- 00096

- CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying Anders procedure in a parental rights termination appeal).

Counsel informed Appellant of her right to file a pro se brief and her right to a free copy of the appellate record. Counsel provided Appellant with a form request for a free copy of the appellate record, and the form lacks only Appellant’s contact information, date, and signature.

The State filed a letter waiving its ri ght to file an appellee’s brief unless Appellant files a

pro se brief.

If Appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER Appellant to do so within
TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a).

If Appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief not later than TWENTY DAYS after Appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. See id. R. 38.6(b).

The motion to withdraw is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of this court.

_______ __________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of December, 20 18

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
|        |        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|        |   | *FutureDrive,* an award-winning quarterly newsletter, focuses on U.S. Department of Energy engineering design competitions for students. 
1999 Newsletters1998 Newsletters1997 Newsletters1996 Newsletters1995 Newsletters                                             |
|   |   |  

Home|Site Map|Working with Argonne|What's New|PublicationsOverview|Assessments|Batteries|Engines/Emissions|Fuel Cells|FuelsHybrid Vehicles|Materials/Mfg.| Modeling/Computing|SensorsOther Technologies|Competitions|Staff|Facilities|Awards|Links

Contact Us |
# Four th Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 11, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00852

- CV

IN RE ANDERSON COLUM BIA CO., INC.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

Irene Rios , Justice

On January 24, 2019, this court order ed the substitution of Judge Maribel Flores as

respondent in this ori ginal proceeding and abat ed the case for 60 days from the date of our

January 24, 2019 order. Our order directed relator to present to Judge Flores each issue made the

subject of the pending petition for writ of mandamus and obtain a ruling on each. Rela tor was

further ordered to file in this court either an amended petition and appendix or the appropriate

motion to dismiss this mandamus proceeding no later than 15 days following Judge Flores’

ruling.

On February 4, 2019, the real parties in interest fi led a motion for rehearing on our

decision to abate. We DENY the motion for rehearing.

It is so ORDERED on February 11, 2019

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court

1 This p roceeding arises out of Cause No. 15

- 03

- 31056

- MCV , styled Jerold Givens, et al

. v. Salatiel Polanco, et al.

, pending in the 293rd Judicial District Court

, Maverick County, Texas . T he Honorable Gloria Saldana signed the

complained

- of order.
,j^^ ^ bor- oiT' i^U - iT-i t 

ma 

STATE O F MICHIGAN 

JENNIFER M.GRANHOLM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION KIRK T. STEUDLE 

GOVERNOR j^^j^^j^ ^ DIRECTOR 

July 15,2010 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division, X-53 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Room 6401 

400 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Reference: USDOT Order 2010-6-4 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

As the agency responsible for promoting air service development in the state, the Michigan 

Department of Transportation- Bureau of Aeronautics and Freight Services appreciates the 

opportunity to provide input on the Essential Air Service (EAS) selection for Gogebic-Iron 

County and Manistee County-Blacker Airports. 

While encouraged by the interest of both Charter Air Transport and Sovereign Air in serving 

these airports, we support the selection of Charter Air Transport as we believe their proposal 

offers the highest possibility of long-term success. We are concerned about what appears to be a 

number of certification and operational milestones that have yet to be achieved by Sovereign Air. 

These certification issues, coupled with a proposal that seems to lack certainty with regard to 

fleet selection, leave us concerned that Sovereign Air may not be in a position to meet the 

obligations required for successful service to these two airports. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the carrier selection process. If you 

need any fiuther information, please contact me at 517-335-9918. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew V. Brinker 

Air Service Specialist 

Bureau of Aeronautics & Freight Services 

Michigan Department of Transportation 

cc: Mr. Duane DuRay, Manager, Gogebic-Iron County Airport 

Mr. Barry Lind, Manager, Manistee County-Blacker Airport 

AERONAUTICS BUILDING • 2700 E. AIRPORT SERVICE DR. • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48906 

www.michigan.gov • (517) 335-9283 

LH-LAN-0 (01/03)
DRA Delta Doctors Program – Waiver of Liquidated Damages Clause Requirement

Effective: September 4, 2020 

Delta Doctors Program

Waiver of Liquidated Damages Clause Requirement

__________________________ (Employer) and ___________________________ 

(Physician) hereby agree to waive the Liquidated Damages Clause required by Delta 

Regional Authority (DRA) as set forth in the Delta Regional Authority J-1 

Visa Waiver Program Affidavit and Agreement. 

DRA takes no position with respect to the inclusion of any other clause mandating

consequential or liquidated damages being paid to the employer.

_____________________________ ______________________________

Physician’s Signature Employer’s Signature

_____________________________ ______________________________

Date Date
EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the Annual Report of Medical Makeover  Corporation of America
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each
of the undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     1. The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.


Date:  May 14, 2008       By:    /s/ Douglas P. Martin
                                ---------------------------------
                                Douglas P. Martin
                                President and Chairman







---------------
A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Echo Resources,  Inc. and will be retained by Echo  Resources,  Inc.
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
Case 16-25128 Doc 14 Filed 08/09/16 Entered 08/10/16 10:39:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1